mardi 13 octobre 2009

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE ARMENIAN NATION[ 2009/10/12 | 17:35 ]society politicsPROTOCOLS AND PRECONDITIONS

By Raffi K. Hovannisian

The history of the Armenian people has been an ordeal of suffering, tragedy, and genocide. In this millennial series of misfortunes, however, never has the nation invited destruction upon itself.

But today it stands at the brink, with a small group of improperly elected leaders apparently racing toward a forsaking of both identity and interest.With the stroke of a pen, the Armenian president and his foreign minister have crossed the line of danger and dignity; in Zurich, Switzerland on October 10, 2009, they resigned from a long-standing national quest to preserve the fundamental rights, security, and integrity of an ancient land and its native heirs.

The signing of the two diplomatic “protocols” between Armenia and Turkey might indeed constitute the latest entry in the ledger of crimes committed, and covered up, against the Armenian nation.

Core Values are Not Commodities

As a servant of the Armenian nation, reflecting both prior office and present opposition, I am appalled by this latest offense. As an Armenian citizen, for many years denied that honor by successive authorities, I ache as the soul of our nation is traded away for illusory promises of “good will” and “open borders” with Turkey.

Our vital values, from our collective responsibility as heirs of the Genocide to our individual expression of liberty and belonging, are not commodities. That unrequited murderous conception of 1915—the original plan to drive to extinction the Armenian people, the Armenian homeland, and so the Armenian species—is one of the principal sources of our modern identity, just as its equitable resolution is the anchor of our future national security.

This is Duplicity, Not Diplomacy

What will “open borders,” a courtesy commonly extended at no cost to all civilized nations, cost the Armenians?

Of course every Armenian seeks peace, prosperity, and good-neighborly relations. But what we have in these protocols is only an expensive illusion of them.

The ends, generally stated, are sound: Open borders and normal diplomatic relations among neighbors are pure and prudent goals. But the means we use must be as pure and prudent as the ends we seek. Unfortunately, the secretive diplomatic process launched by the Armenian and Turkish administrations is defective at the fundaments, sourced as they are in bloody soil, where a pronounced asymmetry of power survives to this day.

First, the protocols stipulate that Armenia relinquish its lawful historic rights and extend an unlimited de jure recognition of Turkey’s de facto borders, which were drawn and defined on the very basis of the eradication and violent dispossession of the Armenian people from its ancestral heartland. In so doing they demand, and have received, the Armenian presidency’s endorsement of that fantastic crime against humanity which has deprived generations of Armenians of its civilization, heritage, and patrimony.

Second, the protocols entail a joint condemnation of terrorism, yet fail to include any corresponding renunciation of the broader criminal outrage of genocide.

Third, the protocols impose a requirement for a “dialogue on the historical dimension” of relations. This measure, representing a unilateral attempt at imprisoning the Armenian genocide in a bilateral echo chamber, not only challenges the untouchable veracity of the Genocide, but secures the complicity of the Armenian state in absolving Turkey of any responsibility for its genocidal actions.

Once these terms are brought to life, absolutely little will remain of the legitimate expectation to secure Turkey’s and the world’s reaffirmation of and redemption for the Genocide. Turkey will forever deflect and delay liabilities for its genocidal acts by leveraging the infinite and inconclusive nature of the bilateral “dialogue.”

Normalization or not, these protocols move us not one inch toward reconciliation, that pure and total communion based on the truth—a brave recognition of all aspects of shared Turkish-Armenian history, including the great genocide and national dispossession of the Armenian people.

The Protocols in the Proper Perspective

In all the pomp and circumstance of diplomatic “breakthroughs,” we cannot forget that the burden of “normalization” rests, as it always has rested, with the Turkish republic. The decisions to close the border with Armenia and to withhold normal diplomatic relations—violations, both, of all viable international norms—were decisions that Turkey made and realized on its own. Hence, each of the Turkish “concessions” reflected in the protocols represents only the most basic minimum commitment of a decent and civilized country.

Turkey’s bare and stated readiness to open borders and normalize relations—the extent of its responsibilities in the framework of the protocols—is, therefore, a non-event. No international initiative should have been necessary for those moves. And that Turkey has made that determination now—only after accepting the sacrifice of an entire nation—deserves not praise but continued skepticism in the substance behind its diplomatic flourishes, whether they relate to the European Union or broader geopolitical objectives.

From Protocols to Parliaments

Now that the Armenian and Turkish sides have signed these protocols, the second stage, of ratification, is set for the parliaments at Yerevan and Ankara.

Regrettably, dispensing with a parliament’s traditional role of advice and consent in the foreign policy of state, the executives have imposed a prohibition on amending or altering these protocols in any way. While this stands in clear contradiction with democratic standards and practices, it also denies the public and its members in each country the right to exercise or engage their opinions in this process. This extraordinary methodology flies in the face of customary diplomatic practice, which calls for the establishment of official relations through a simple exchange of notes.

The scheme here is plain, perfectly tailored, and aimed at tying down for good history’s loose ends. Soon the Armenian National Assembly, too, will be called upon to bear complicit responsibility in giving legislative validation nearly 90 years after the fact to the illegal Bolshevik-Kemalist pacts which crowned the genocidal process and sought to seal the fate of the Armenian nation.

What is more, not content with pursuing this official acceptance of Turkey’s long-standing occupation of the Armenian homeland, its leaders will continue audaciously to abuse every turn of the ratification process in order to deflect their own culpability by linking implementation of the protocols and lifting of the Turkish blockade with what they pitch as the “occupied territories of Azerbaijan.” Clearly, that would be a disingenuous and inapposite reference to the freedom-loving people of Mountainous Karabagh, its odds-defying liberation and constitutional decolonization from the Turco-Stalinist legacy, and its resultant territorial integrity.

In the final analysis, Armenian and Turkish citizens have been refused both voice and choice in determining the outcome of an immensely significant process that will forge the future course of both countries. This is especially distressing, because on the judgments to be made in the coming weeks and months shall turn the fate of generations to come—and their imperative to face history, remember collectively, and bridge in earnest the great Turkish-Armenian divide.

mercredi 10 juin 2009

dimanche 31 mai 2009

1. On February 2, 2009, resident of Yerevan S. Mikayelyan (Er. Kochar Str. 7, Ap. 10) has made a request to the Head of “Kentron” District, in order to receive tax advantage on property tax. “Kentron” District Council has rejected the request in writing (February 10, 2009) mentioning that the request will be brought up for the District Council discussion in the course of Fiscal Year 2009.On May 30, 2009, one day prior to the City Council elections, the request of S. Mikayelyan on property tax advantage was approved by “Kentron” District Council.2. On May 30 at around 8:00 p.m. members of ANC Nor Nork district Campaign headquarters have witnessed vote-buying. The fact was registered with the District Police. Photo is available. 3. At 8.21 a.m. in the PEC 7/ 08 Member of PEC Misakian Gor (from court department) has beaten up member of Comission from Heritage Party Gaguik Sargsian and proxy of Armenian National Congress Serjik Mkrtchian. At this moment protocol on violation is drafting.4. In Avan district taxi services “Z” (62-62-62) and “Milena” (62-10-10) are collecting people in organized manner and taking them into PEC. Taxi “Z” belongs to number 2 in Republican Electoral list. In the meantime they don’t take orders from ordinary customers. The owner of Taxi service “Z” and minibus # 5 is Head of Avan District Taron Margaryan and all taxis and minibuses serve to transporting the voters from Narekatsi and Duryan Streets to the PEC in the neighborhood of Avan Cinema (10:30)5. At 9:00 a.m. in the neighborhood of PEC 2/4 of Nor Nork District members of ANC campaign headquarters witnessed that voters approached a minibus stationed near the PEC and got paid before voting. 6. At 9:00 a.m. members of ANC campaign headquarters witnessed open balloting in PEC 9/20. The fact was registered in PEC.7. Persons in green teashirts were trying to distance the voters from PEC-s in Ajapnyak/Davitashen District, except for the persons they recognize, whom they personally escort to PEC-s. This is blatant violation of Article 23 of RA Electoral Law. 8. Deputy Head of Ajapnyak/Davitashen district Armen Baghdasaryan is hindering the work of ANC proxies, local observers and journalists by arguing and scuffling with them.9. In Shengavit District voters busing was registered by ANC representatives, which was prevented by them.10. ANC proxy in PEC 8/02 of Malatya/Sebastya District Armen Abrahamyan was hindered from his work and then beaten up by Vardan Vardanyan, Chair of PEC.11. In PEC 7/8 took place fighting. The circumstances are being clarified. 12. In Kentron District PEC 9/1, 9/2 and 9/3 located in Nalbandyan School journalist of “Chorrord Ishkhanutiun” Gohar Veziryan was beaten up by member of National Assembly Levon Sargsyan (known as Alraghatsi Lyov). ANC proxies were beaten up in the same PECs and were taken to the Police station. (around 10:30 a.m.).13. People are transported from Gyumri by 16 Gazel minibuses (licence # 19 415, 18 594, 362 45, 16 393, 12711, 06 617, 17 953, 45 777, 18 053, 19 415, 45 032, 10 911, 45 746, 45 345, 10 918, 45 344) and 20 cars escorted by the Mayor of Gyumry Vardan Ghukasyan and Police cars (licence # 232 02, 340 01) to participate in voting. The gathering of minibuses in Gyumri was registered by the observers of Transparency International.14. Ten minibuses were observed in the neighborhood of Ashtarak Police headquarters (licence # 45 LL 851, 13 068, 06 617, 11 237, 17 687) with residents of Gyumri. The buses headed to Yervan at 11:20 a.m..15. In the yard of School # 35 in Aresh district unknown people from cars (licence # Ford 03 374) are distributing money among people (vote buying).16. In PEC 2/28 servicemen in military uniform introducing himself as Gyurjanyan Vardan has stated that he was sent from # 3 military unit based in Martuni region of NKR to participate in the elections together with his friends who have Yerevan registration. Member of PEC commission from Heritage Party and ANC proxy have requested to register the violation, but the request was ignored and the incident wasn’t registered by PEC.17. In all districts of Yerevan transportation of voters was reported (minibuses # 84, 46, 7 and others).18. Observers of Transparency International reported gatherings and ballot-stuffing in PECs 8/05, 8/06, 07 of Malatya/Sebastya District.19. In PEC 13/22 the supporters of Gagik Beglaryan take the voters to the next room and give them AMD 5 000 right in the PEC.20. In PECs 9/04 and 9/05 located in School # 39 (Tskhakhotagortsneri Street) the voting is open and fighting took place.21. Transportation of voters to PEC’s 9/1 and 9/2 of “Kentron” District located in 38 Nar Dos Street, school # 33, while the Chairman and members of PEC Commission ignore the complaints. 22. Transportation of voters to PEC 3/26 in Kanaker-Zeytun District and gathering of people.23. In PEC 06/01 and 06/02 of Ajapniak District case of parallel voting is reported.24. Transportation of voters by #4 minibuses from town of Abovyan.25. Transportaion of voters by # 82 minibuses to PECs 7/05, 7/06/, 7/0726. In PECs 11/33 located in school # 75 of Shengavit District the members of commission forcibly took away the ballots from the voters, filled the voting papers and voted.27. In PEC 12/27 the members of commission forcibly took away the ballots from the voters, filled in and voted.28. Transportation of voters to PECs 7/31, 7/32 by minibuses (1956U, 630U796). A Mercedes Jeep (licence # 400OU10) stationed near the PECs is distributing money to the voters (vote buying). There is gathering of young people in green teashirts (photos available). 29. Transportation of voters to PEC 13/17 in Aresh (Erebuni District) located in school #43 as well as in PEC located in prolonged school # 1 as well as carrousel voting is reported.30. A group of persons headed by Vladimir Gasparyan, Head of Military Police of RA Defense Military, armed with submachine gun attacked territorial head of BHK campaign headquarters Ruben Gevorgyan (Tsaghik Rubo). One of the body-guards of the Head of Davitashen District (nephew of R. Gevorgyan) is reported wounded. 31. In PECs’ 9/01, 02, 03 Principal of school # 33 has imposed pressure on the observers, when the observers have pointed on illegal gatherings in the PECs. 32. Distribution of money among the voters near 1/26 PEC.33. The chairman of Commission has brutally impeded the work of the observer, Chairman of Helsinki Association Mikayel Danielyan and didn’t allow him to enter PEC 8/27 and take shoot the process of elections.34. Voting with military ID cards shot by GALA TV station.35. Elderly people were transported to PECs of Avan District by taxis and private cars. 36. In the yard of 3 Narekatsi Street of Avan District Passport data of the voters are being filled in. The fact is registered and photos are available. Minibuses are stationed in front of Music School to transport the voters to the precincts. The fact is registered and photos are available.37. In the yard of PEC 11/03 in Shengavit distribution of money was reported and the voters are transported to the precincts.38. In Nor Nork 7 a fight between HHK and BHK supperters took place, as well as accumulation of Jeeps. 39. Open voting, stuffing at 14.15 in PEC’s 8/05, 8/06, 8.07 took place under the leadership of the Andrei Zatikian. Head of Municipal District of Malatia- Sebastia David Ohanian was also present during illegal actions. Personal cars of Zatikian and Ohanian (state plates 06060 and 60045) were in neighborhood.40. At 14:45 lots of minibuses (labeled Luis Astgh and Kaizer) were stationed near the church of Malatya-Sebastia District.41. Ballot stuffing took place by unknown group of people in 13/18 PEC in Erebuni.at 15:00 who attempted to implement carrousel voting as well. Members of PEC and ANC proxy have drafted a protocol. 42. PEC 4/05, Arabkir, 15:00. Open campaigning in favor of Republican party and Prosperous Armenia.43. Malatia-Sebastia, PEC 8/15. Hayk Gevorgian, a candidate for the City Council from ANC has been beaten up.44. Erebuni, 13/18 PEC. Stuffing attempt was prevented. 24 ballots marked for Republican – 7, Prosperous Armenia – 5 and Orinats Erkir – 12 were confiscated. Protocol was drafted.45. ANC proxy in PEC 8/16 Malatya-Sebastya District Khachatryan Artiom reported that voting ballots were stolen. The proxy requested to register this fact but the Commission refused to register the violation. Journalist of A1+ was present.46. Alarm was received from residents of 20, 22, 23 Aharonyan Street that representatives of District authorities were checking the participation of the residents of the said buildings and were offering financial support and as well as escorting to the precinct. 47. Transportation of voters and gatherings in the neighborhood of Tumanyan school in Shengavit were reported.48. In PEC 10/24 of Kentron District members of commission provided the voters with voting papers damaged while tearing the stub of the ballot saying that they were valid.49. In PEC 8/3 of Malatya-Sebastya a woman cast 15-20 ballots. The proxy has noticed that and called the police officer. The Police officer tried to see the proxy off the precinct.50. Ballot stuffing in PEC 7/7 (Malatya-Sebastya) by HHK member of Commission Hovhannes Sargsyan in presence of BHK (Prosperous Armenia) member Metaksya Khachatryan.51. In PEC 6/01 (Ajapniak) 15:15. Proxy of ARF Dashnaktsutiun revealed a person possessing the passport of the member of the PEC from Orinats Yerkir Melsida Azarian.52. PEC 12/31, Shengavit, 15:40. The ANC proxy reported that second door was opened in the PEC from the Republican party (HHK) campaign headquarters. Protocol is drafted.53. PEC 8/01, Malatia/Sebastia, 15:50. Observer from Transparency International regported stuffing. Journalist representing “Hajkakan Jamanak” was not allowed by the members of commission to take pictures. The journalist’s photo camera was forcefully taken by the members of PEC.54. Sovetashen District, 16:20, Open campaigning of the representative of the Republican party.55. PEC 13/24 and 13/25. A big group of unknown persons is putting pressure on the members of commission and the proxy of ANC.56. PEC 8/05, 16.50. Violence is used on Armineh Avetian, journalist of “168 Jam” newspaper and Sona Aivazian, observer from Transparency International. More that 100 ballots were stuffed.57. PEC 7/05, 16:50. Chairman of the PEC put psychological pressure on members of the PEC, proxy of the ANC was forced to leave the PEC. Observer reported on total stuffing. by Vladimir Karapetian

jeudi 16 avril 2009

Y ears ago Andrei Gromyko, the veteran Soviet Foreign Minister, was once buttonholed by his irate Turkish counterpart. “Why do you show Mount Ararat, which lies in Turkey, on the flag of Soviet Armenia? Do you lay claim to our territory?” “No,” replied Gromyko. “Why do you have a crescent on your flag? Do you lay claim to the Moon?”

Armenia is now free of Soviet control. But the Turkish-Armenian border, sealed during the Cold War years when it marked the tense boundary between Nato and the Soviet Union, remains closed. And though Armenians gaze across at Ararat’s elusive peak, they still cannot cross over into the lost provinces of their historic homeland that lie in northeast Turkey.

Something, however, may at last be moving. Ali Babacan, Turkey’s Foreign Minister, will visit Yerevan today for a meeting of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Council, an 11-nation regional grouping set up in 1992. But the real issue for him and for his Armenian hosts is the border. Can both countries set aside their historic animosities and suspicions and dismantle the last Cold War barbed-wire barricades?

Barack Obama hopes so. Indeed, in Istanbul last week he challenged his Turkish hosts to “move forward” and establish, for the first time, diplomatic ties with their Armenian neighbours. Much more than just the border is at stake. A reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia would help to ease more than 90 years of bitterness dating back to the Ottoman massacres of Armenians between 1915 and 1917, which still cast a long shadow over the politics of the Caucasus and the West’s attitudes to Turkey.

An open border would not only bring huge economic benefits to both sides: it could also help to thaw one of the last “frozen conflicts” in Europe’s backyard, the military stand-off between Armenia and Azerbaijan over control of the ethnically Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh.

It could also help Russia to regain its balance within the turbulent Caucasus and Turkey to extend its reach to its cultural Central Asian hinterland. And it could remove some of the taboos from today’s Turkish politics, where any mention of the Ottoman killings of up to 1.5 million Armenians produces a venomous nationalist reaction.

The issues are all interlinked, and, bedevilled by emotion, are exceptionally difficult to resolve. At the heart of the stalemate lie the fears and political isolation of Armenia, a tiny country of less than three million people, that has historically been at the mercy of its powerful neighbours. Armenia, the first nation to adopt Christianity, lies on the front line of Islam, and has always looked to Russia for protection from Turkey and its Muslim Azeri neighbours. It is a role that Moscow has embraced eagerly, and one that has underpinned Russia’s military confrontation with Turkey, which for centuries has shaped the history of both countries.

But the forcible incorporation of Armenia into the Soviet Union in 1922 changed the relationship. There is lingering resentment in Yerevan of Moscow, especially after the postSoviet economic collapse when Russia put pressure on Armenia by cutting fuel supplies. The impoverished nation shivered through several winters. Armenia hoped to open up to the south. But although the border with Turkey was briefly opened, it was closed swiftly in 1993 after Armenia invaded Azerbaijan to establish a corridor to the besieged Nagorno-Karabakh, and Turkey sided with Muslim Azeris.

Turkish support is vital to Azeri hopes of regaining control of its enclave. Azerbaijan has therefore reacted ferociously to hints of a Turkish-Armenian rapprochement. It has suggested that it would use its oil muscle and interrupt supplies through the vital pipeline from Baku to southern Turkey unless Armenia made concessions.

The threat seems to have rattled Ankara. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s Prime Minister, poured cold water yesterday on suggestions from Armenia that the border could be opened in time for the World Cup qualifying tie in October. President Sarksyan said he hoped he would be able to cross the border into Turkey to watch the football game. Not until Nagorno-Karabakh is settled, Mr Erdogan retorted.

The Islamist Prime Minister cannot be seen to abandon his Muslim neighbour. But Turkey has also long harboured hopes that it could spread its influence far beyond Azerbaijan into former Soviet Central Asia, which is Turkic-speaking and desperately in need of some Western knowhow and investment. These hopes came to little in the early 90s. Now they are being revived. Ankara can ill afford to upset the Azeris.

Reconciliation with Armenia, however, and an end to the Caucasus stalemate could benefit everyone. It would confirm the status of Turkey as the superpower within the Black Sea council. Turkey may look to the EU as a supplicant, but to its neighbours it looks an economic giant.

Armenia, blocked to the north by the instability in Georgia and fearful of being too dependent on Russia, would have an alternative outlet to the world through Turkey. And economic cooperation could soothe historic hatreds.

For Russia, there would also be gains. Paradoxically, the Russians have never had better relations with Turkey than now, largely because of the huge volume of trade, the massive flow of Russian tourists and the reduced threat from a Nato member on Russia’s borders. But these smooth relations are fragile.

Historic competition for influence and for the region’s energy resources could flare up again. Russian actions in Georgia raised hackles in Turkey. Moscow needs a settlement to ensure that there is no new “South Ossetia” in the offing – and that the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute does not turn violent again, leaving Moscow and Ankara on opposite sides.

Mount Ararat is a peak of startling beauty, especially in the morning sun. The reputed resting place of the Ark and revered by so many in the region, it has become a symbol of division. An open border would allow all to approach its heights.

dimanche 23 novembre 2008

Eight members of the "Committee in Defence of Political Prisoners" have stated that they join the protest action of 28 political prisoners who had announced a one-day hunger strike as a protest action against the "hypocritical and inconsistent policy of the Council of Europe."

Among those who have joined the protest action are the following persons: well-known film director Tigran Khzmalyan, human rights activist Vardan Arutyunyan, former vice-speaker of parliament and former political prisoner Karapet Rubinyan, commander of special battalion "Shushi" lieutenant colonel Zhirair Sefilyan, chairman of the NGO "Women of Armenia" Gayane Martirosyan and others.

"As a sign of solidarity with our comrades, who continue their heroic struggle for free and democratic Armenia even in prison, we, the members of the 'Committee in Defence of Political Prisoners', announce our own hunger strike on November 20," runs the statement of the Committee.

We remind you that the imprisoned activists of the opposition have declared their intention to hold on November 20 a one-day hunger strike in protest against "inconsistency and hypocrisy of the Council of Europe."

28 activists have disseminated their statement addressed to the Supreme Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe Thomas Hammarberg and running that despite their deep respect to his person and activities they refuse to meet him. They have motivated their refusal by passiveness of European bureaucratic structures.

The authors of the statement express their bewilderment with the fact that the European structures and, first of all, the Council of Europe, having in their hands a full set of facts about lawlessness and falsifications on the elections, have recognized the officially proclaimed results of the elections, having untied the hands of the ruling administration to launch repressions against their own people, and "to savagely disperse peaceful meetings and hold bloody massacres."

Among the authors of the statement are the former deputy general public prosecutor Gagik Dzhangiryan, former minister on incomes and member of the board of the "Republic" Party Smbat Aivazyan, and other activists of the opposition, namely: Vardan Malkhasyan, Musheg Sagatelyan, David Matevosyan, Samvel Karapetyan, Tigran Melkonyan, Petros Makeyan, Ashot Zakaryan and others.

See earlier reports: "Hammerberg reveals results of studying post-election events in Armenia," "Armenia: rallies in defence of political prisoners continue," "In Armenia, two residents of the city of Maralik go on hunger strike in support of arrested oppositionist," "Armenians of Europe rally in Brussels to protest on events in Yerevan."Author: Lilit Ovanisyan, CK correspondentCaucasian Knot information

samedi 22 novembre 2008

Mr. President, in your speech on 17 October you had promised always to keep the society informed about the developments concerning the resolution of the Karabagh conflict. Would it be correct to regard the meeting between the presidents of Russia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan – Medvedev, Sargsyan, and Aliyev – as one such development?

First, I have not forgotten my promise. Moreover, in order to make our conversation more grounded, I would like to remind the readers the appropriate excerpt of the speech: “We are going to witness developments of utmost importance regarding the resolution of the Karabagh conflict in the upcoming several months, which at this stage make our domestic problems secondary. We are going to follow these developments carefully, to assess the adequacy of the steps taken by the Armenian authorities in response to the situation, always to keep the society informed about the process of resolving the Karabagh conflict, and to thwart or minimize the threats to the interests of the Armenian side.” As for your question, the Moscow declaration should definitely be considered as one of the most important developments in the process.

Some people have gotten the impression that the declaration is more of a formality and that it is devoid of any real content.

Only people unfamiliar with the details of the process of resolving the Karabagh conflict can form such an erroneous impression. For experts it is just the opposite - a very telling document, because it clarifies several principal and specific issues. We should also realize that the document is just the tip of the iceberg, and that it has a very comprehensive base, the content of which is not difficult to guess.

Which are the principal and specific issues you referred to?

The very first article of the declaration contains a worrisome formulation, according to which “the conflict in Karabagh will be resolved according to the principles and norms of international law, as well as the decisions and documents adopted on their basis.” It is not the platitude about the “principles and norms of international law” that is the source of concern here, but the mention of the “decisions and documents adopted on its basis.” The latter presupposes, undoubtedly in response to Azerbaijani demands, the Resolution 62/243 of the General Assembly of the UN and the Resolution 1614 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Council, which recognize Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and demand the withdrawal of Armenian forces from Azerbaijani territories adjacent to Karabagh.

The second article of the Moscow declaration states unequivocally, that the Madrid proposal submitted by the co-chairmen of the Minsk Group on 29 November, 2007, will form the basis of the resolution of the Karabagh conflict. Since I have discussed the content of that proposal in detail in my 17 October speech, I am not going to talk about it now. I would like to remind only that the harmonization of the two [relevant] principles of international law – the sanctity of territorial integrity and the right to self determination – is the essence of that proposal.

The preamble and article 4 of the declaration talk about the resolution of the Karabagh conflict through the ongoing direct dialogue between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which in essence defines a new format regarding the parties to the conflict. The declaration thus buries once and for all the resolution adopted during the Budapest summit of 1994, which had recognized Nagorno-Karabagh as a full, third party to the conflict with all the appropriate rights. This means that Karabagh is going to have no role in the subsequent negotiations that are going to decide its fate.

The fact that the two conflicting parties – Armenia and Azerbaijan –have essentially given their consent to the Madrid principles, must, nonetheless, be considered the most important result of the Moscow declaration, which is an unprecedented event in the entire process of [negotiations] to resolve the Karabagh conflict. The problem is that the three previous proposals of the Minsk Group co-chairmen – the “phased plan,” the package deal,” and the idea of a “common state” - have not received the approval of the conflicting parties, and have therefore been taken out of the agenda. Both the “phased plan” and the “package deal” were rejected by Karabagh, while the “common state” idea was rejected by Azerbaijan. The signatures of Serge Sargsyan and Ilham Aliyev on the Moscow declaration signify the beginning to the final phase of the resolution of the Karabagh conflict.

Didn’t you forget the Key West proposal?

The Key West proposal was not an official proposal of the co-chairmen of the Minsk Group. But regardless, that proposal also was not accepted by one of the parties – Azerbaijan.

Doesn’t the Russian initiative contradict the opinion expressed in your latest speech that the decisive role in resolving the Karabagh conflict will be played by the West?

Not at all. Even though the meeting in Moscow is a turning point, it is just the beginning of the process. The process now continues in Europe, and it will in all likelihood end in the United States in December. In other words, even though the apparent honor of opening the process has been granted to Russia, the sole power of ending it will belong to the West. Both Sargsyan and Aliev have participated in the Moscow meeting if not under duress, then with poorly veiled reluctance. Despite the differences in their reasons, they both are going to prefer the West’s mediation.

What role will be granted to the Minsk Group, which, the declaration insists, should continue to exists and operate?

The more the role of the Minsk Group is emphasized and the more compliments are made in its address the deeper the suspicions about disagreements inside it become. Despite being a useful instrument, it is basically a diplomatic cover for achieving the aims of the mediator countries.

Gathered for an evening of talk and music to celebrate their city’s anniversary, the mood is palpably upbeat among the crowds in Republic Square, the traditional meeting place in Armenia’s capital.Clever lighting brings out the best in the four stately curved buildings that define the huge space, as popular for gatherings in communist times as it is today. In front, a large stage stands by the neo-classical national museum for the rock band and assorted dignitaries involved.But once the music stops on the dot of 11pm, the square in Yerevan empties in minutes. As the stragglers leave, no less than 12 police cars descend on the increasingly deserted space, warning lights ablaze.Their presence is a reminder of the political tensions that lurk below the surface, even eight months after contested presidential elections. Within days of the February vote, unrest erupted as Levon Ter-Petrosian, the country’s first post communist president, accused the victor Serge Sarkisian, a former defence minister, of ballot-rigging.

Mr Ter-Petrosian was seeking a return to power after being ousted in 1998 by Robert Kocharian, Mr Sarkisian’s mentor. His claims and subsequent big public demonstrations culminated in a police crackdown that left 10 dead and 75 opposition supporters in prison.On this particular evening in Republic Square, there are no incidents. But, opposition leaders say political repression is still widespread in one of the most strategically significant parts of the Caucasus.Armenia is not alone in facing accusations of repression and electoral fraud. Neighbouring Georgia has seen growing criticism of the allegedly authoritarian rule of president Mikheil Saakashvili, though there has been greater unity since the country’s brief conflict with Russia. And in Azerbaijan, last month’s elections produced predictable claims by the opposition that the polls were a sham.

Armen Harutiunian, Armenia’s ombudsman and the man entrusted with protecting human rights, says the government has resorted to “the methods of 1937” to consolidate power and curb opposition, referring to Stalin’s purges.Mr Harutiunian, a lawyer who headed Armenia’s public administration academy before his appointment in 2006, is equally dismissive of parliament, which he says is overwhelmed by parties loyal to the government.“The government only wants an opposition for decoration to please the west. There’s no real opposition,” he argues.

Mr Harutiunian swats away the official investigation set up to examine the post election violence as “a farce”. And he claims the government has applied direct and indirect pressure to limit his own efforts to uncover political abuse.Opposition leaders reinforce such claims. Levon Zouhrabian, a top official of Mr Ter-Petrosian’s Armenian National Congress party, accuses the government of taking unprecedented action to restrict freedom of speech. “There are people who have spoken out and regretted it, but we are not afraid”, he says. Such comments are echoed by MPs from the Jarangoutioun (Heritage) party, the only opposition group still represented in parliament.

samedi 25 octobre 2008

Oct 16th 2008 | BAKU, TBILISI AND YEREVAN

from The Economist print edition

An edgy neighbourhood has become both more dangerous and more important

... it is the three countries of the south Caucasus—Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia—that are the bigger story now, for they are the cockpit in a new clash between Russia and the West. The main reason these tiny countries matter, despite a combined population of only 16m or so, is geographical. Perched next to Turkey, north of Iran and south of Russia, this is a place where empires have long met—and clashed. Russia never reconciled itself to losing control of the Caucasus when the Soviet Union broke up in 1990-91. Moscow has been visibly fretful about rising Western influence.[Read the full story]